Switch a plugin off or on. Money is integer minor units (cents). Calling this changes nothing: it returns a preview of what would change and a confirmation link. Only the merchant, on that page, can make it happen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin | Yes | The plugin's slug or name, as plugins.list gives them. | |
| enabled | Yes | false switches it off without removing it or its settings; true switches it back on. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses substantial behavior absent from annotations: the call is a staging step returning a preview and confirmation link, and only the merchant can execute the change. This two-phase confirmation model is exactly the kind of context annotations don't convey. There is mild tension with readOnlyHint=false (the call 'changes nothing'), but the tool's overall mutation intent reconciles it, so it is not a hard contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The opening sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the sentence 'Money is integer minor units (cents)' is irrelevant boilerplate with no money parameter in this tool, which is noise that fails to earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param toggle with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the important workflow and return behavior (preview + link). Nothing critical is missing, though the absence of any output schema means the preview's exact shape is only loosely described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'plugin' (slug/name from plugins.list) and 'enabled' (off without removal, back on). The description adds no further parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Switch a plugin off or on'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like plugins_list and plugins_settings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the toggle intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the confirmation workflow (preview + confirmation link, merchant-only execution), which gives context for how the tool behaves, but never states when to choose this over plugins_settings or plugins_list. Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
